Powered by i.TV
May 25, 2012

Couric says she won't go into war zone

by Joel Keller, posted Jul 21st 2006 9:35AM
Katie CouricAccess Hollywood has a takes a second off from its Suri Cruise watch to present a serious story on how news anchors and reporters deal with being in war zones. They speak to NBC's Martin Fletcher about almost being killed by a rocket in Haifa as he was working a story about Hezbollah's bombing of the Israeli city a few days ago.

The article goes on to mention Bob Woodruff's injury in Iraq, and the fact that both Brian Williams and Charles Gibson are overseas right now. But then they pose the big question: Will Katie Couric, when she takes over at CBS this fall, travel to the war zone? Her answer is quite understandable: "I think the situation there is so dangerous, and as a single parent with two children, that's something I won't be doing," she told Access. I wonder why more reporters don't think that way.

[via Mediabistro]

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

5 Comments

Filter by:
Brent McKee

I agree with Couric on this one as well. There is a reason why a high percentage of the female foreign correspondents, particularly the ones who cover war zones, are single or don't have kids. Couric's position, a single parent of a 15 year-old and a 10 year-old gives her added concerns. After all as we saw with Bob Woodruff very bad things can happen very suddenly, and I doubt that Couric would want to leave her daughters as orphans.

July 21 2006 at 3:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
LC

I'm no Couric fan by any means, but I agree with her on this. I really don't see the need for an anchor to go over to a warzone, or anywhere other than the anchor chair for that matter. It does not enhance the news, it does not give me any more information than they could tell me from a studio and with all the video and pictures shot by field journalists I can see what is going on.

CBS would be stupid to have her go there as well especially after the way they promoted her move and the salary they are paying her. They don't need to risk any of that.

July 21 2006 at 1:11 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
kenivc

Anchors/dozens of other reporters. do not need to go to war zones. A few from each news provider for sure. Think of how many people, especially the clay mold blonde news readers that would be out of a job if there were not 9000 cable/satellite stations. It is overdone. We do not need second to second coverage...
I am with Katy

July 21 2006 at 12:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Gordon Werner

being a parent or not ... it is the difference between being a serious REPORTER and a trained monkey ... I mean NEWS READER.

July 21 2006 at 9:56 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
dvddesign

It's likely being a single parent.

A lot of reporters have a mindset of "If I don't get it, then someone else will, and I'm out of a job." So, that's why reporters go stand in hurricanes, war zones, blizzards, frogs from the sky, etc.

Most reporters are all about face time. The more the better. If they don't get on the air much they get really weird, and even more difficult to deal with.

The fact that Katie doesn't want to go says two things to me, and it could be either or both. The single parent angle is one... The other is that she's damn cocksure that she's not going anywhere and she's bringing her clout to the table to determine how the news department will be run under her.

July 21 2006 at 9:51 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners